3 ms·

> The winners will have to prove by 2030 that their intervention can turn back the clock in older adults by at least a decade in three key areas: cognition, imm

> The winners will have to prove by 2030 that their intervention can turn back the clock in older adults by at least a decade in three key areas: cognition, immunity, and muscle function. <checks math>: that's 10 years of aging progress in 7 years. I'll take it! I'd be ecstatic if I netted 3 years younger for every decade going forward. Of course, I'd actually expect that to accelerate, but given my current age, I'll happily take anything that is breakeven right now.

swells34 3y ago
Personally, I think we should wait 5-10 years before trying to solve aging.
- gcanyon 3y ago
  If you're implying what I think you're implying, just start a rumor that the tech tracks your location, and problem solved...
  - ralusek 3y ago
    Forgive me if I'm reaching, but I had absolutely no idea what this discussion was saying. This is my best bet understanding: User implies we should wait 5-10 years to cure aging. Implication being that we want someone near death to actually die. Shot in the dark because people are boring: guessing Trump or Biden. Your response seems to imply that all that would be needed to have that person ignore the technology would be to say that it tracks your location. This seems to imply that you assumed they were talking about Trump, because he's associated with conspiratorial thinking. Did I understand this thread correctly or am I having a stroke?
    - credit_guy 3y ago
      Completely unrelated to either the GP or GGP. My take was that GGP was making a joke on mathematical induction: wait 5-10 years, and when you get there wait 5-10 years again, etc. So, a roundabout way of saying "just don't do it". To which the GP answered "start a rumor about anti-aging tech invading your privacy", and then even if it gets done, it doesn't get used, so the end result is the same.
      - gcanyon 3y ago
        You're giving me too much credit for being fair-minded -- ralusek's interpretation is 100% correct :-)
        gcanyon 3y ago
        Edit to correct myself: I wasn't thinking of Trump himself, as ralusek seems to be saying. I just meant older q-anon types.
    - gcanyon 3y ago
      You are 100% correct and not (I hope) having a stroke.
      - gcanyon 3y ago
        Edit to correct myself: I wasn't thinking of Trump himself, just older q-anon types in general.

swells34 3y ago

Personally, I think we should wait 5-10 years before trying to solve aging.

gcanyon 3y ago
If you're implying what I think you're implying, just start a rumor that the tech tracks your location, and problem solved...
- ralusek 3y ago
  Forgive me if I'm reaching, but I had absolutely no idea what this discussion was saying. This is my best bet understanding: User implies we should wait 5-10 years to cure aging. Implication being that we want someone near death to actually die. Shot in the dark because people are boring: guessing Trump or Biden. Your response seems to imply that all that would be needed to have that person ignore the technology would be to say that it tracks your location. This seems to imply that you assumed they were talking about Trump, because he's associated with conspiratorial thinking. Did I understand this thread correctly or am I having a stroke?
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    Completely unrelated to either the GP or GGP. My take was that GGP was making a joke on mathematical induction: wait 5-10 years, and when you get there wait 5-10 years again, etc. So, a roundabout way of saying "just don't do it". To which the GP answered "start a rumor about anti-aging tech invading your privacy", and then even if it gets done, it doesn't get used, so the end result is the same.
    - gcanyon 3y ago
      You're giving me too much credit for being fair-minded -- ralusek's interpretation is 100% correct :-)
      - gcanyon 3y ago
        Edit to correct myself: I wasn't thinking of Trump himself, as ralusek seems to be saying. I just meant older q-anon types.
  - gcanyon 3y ago
    You are 100% correct and not (I hope) having a stroke.
    - gcanyon 3y ago
      Edit to correct myself: I wasn't thinking of Trump himself, just older q-anon types in general.